Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

Aaron112 · Jan 21, 2025

A few people have a lie detector.

Almost no one here, anywhere, on earth, has one.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 21, 2025

BCP1928 said:
All Traditional Christians, I believe, for many centuries. Your theory was invented by Calvin.

I don't care what Calvin thought or if he is the first to be cited for having articulated the argument, however minimal it may be.

AV1611VET · Jan 21, 2025

Aaron112 said:
A few people have a lie detector.

Almost no one here, anywhere, on earth, has one.

Just FYI, read Numbers 5 and tell me if you see a lie detector in it.

Fervent · Jan 21, 2025

Kylie said:
You'll have to tell me.

You are the one who said that Jesus having followers who were willing to die for their beleifs was important.

You misunderstand my point, which is explaining the origins. Islam's origins are easily explainable because Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword.

Kylie said:
I'm just pointing out that Islam has the same thing, when you specifically left out that fact and said that Islam spread through nothing but violence, presenting the impression that all Muslims were forced into it.

You're just missing the actual point of what I've said, which is not simply that followers were willing to die but that the rise of the belief requires explanation.

Kylie said:
Careful, your bias is showing.

Nah, more like yours since you completely misunderstand the point by bringing up an irrelevant detail.

Fervent · Jan 21, 2025

BCP1928 said:
The trouble is, you have touched on a very sensitive point for fundamentalists, and it's not about the existence of God or the truth of the resurrection. There is no clear reason to suppose that the companions of Christ understood, in the immediate aftermath of what they took to be the resurrection, what it all meant theologically. Even the first recorded statement of what became known as the Atonement may not have been formulated until it appeared in Paul's epistle 30 years later. And that only weakly supports the specific theory of the Atonement being pushed by today's fundamentalists as essential to the faith, which in any case is not quite the same as that attributed by many scholars to the early church. As late as the third century Augustine was still struggling to give Apostolic authority to the doctrine of Original Sin on which it depends. You can be sure that if the least scrap of evidence of the kind you are asking for existed anywhere it would be speedily produced.

If I understand you correctly, this is pretty much my view as well.

2PhiloVoid said:
No clear reason? Even if it's historically of secondary nature, there is reason enough to think many early disciples of Jesus understood the essentials of "what it all meant theologically," BCP.

Let's not undersell what more than likely can be reasonably surmised.

Let's not oversell it, either. Christians have been unpacking the significance of the resurrection since it happened. They likely understood some basic issues, but it took Paul's theological training to put together some more of the nitty gritty.

BCP1928 said:
All Traditional Christians, I believe, for many centuries. Your theory was invented by Calvin.

The rudimentary elements of sola scriptura were sewed with the Antiochan method of exegesis. And it was fully fleshed out with Jan Hus a century before Calvin came on the scene.

BCP1928 · Jan 21, 2025

You're right. I dislike Calvin and have a regrettable tendency to blame him for everything I see as wrong with Christianity today.

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
No one at the university level will agree with you, Kylie.

No one at the university level thinks a person who makes a claim must support that claim?

Do universities not teach the burden of proof?

2PhiloVoid said:
Besides, you're always complaining that you want Christians to leave you alone, yet here you are............on CF of all things for over a decade. I'd call that dedication.

Please show me once instance where I have told someone to leave me along because they were Christian.

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

AV1611VET said:
From AI Overview:

According to most perspectives, it is highly unlikely that someone would willingly die for something they knew to be a lie; the very concept of "knowing it's a lie" implies a conscious understanding that it is false, making it improbable to sacrifice one's life for it; however, people might die defending beliefs they strongly hold, even if those beliefs are based on misinformation or propaganda, as they may genuinely believe them to be true.

Yes, and I agree with that.

Again, I ask you, what point were you trying to make in post 2426?

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Negative.

Jesus performed miracles in front of His followers at will.

Mohammad?

No.

Look at you changing the subject.

We were talking about people willing to die for their beliefs.

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Dlamberth.

On paper.

What's your point?

My point is that your claim is much less impressive.

Or are you impressed with simply MAKING a claim? In that case, I can make some claims that will leave your jaw on the floor.

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
No clear reason? Even if it's historically of secondary nature, there is reason enough to think many early disciples of Jesus understood the essentials of "what it all meant theologically," BCP.

Let's not undersell what more than likely can be reasonably surmised.

Given that Biblical scholars will tell you that the only thing they can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified, you can't even surmise that he had any followers at all.

Now, if you want to say that you take it on faith, go right ahead, but you'll have to admit that you have no evidence in order to do that.

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

AV1611VET said:
They who?

Matthew writes [A], claiming to be an eyewitness.
Matthew is told to recant of [A], under penalty of death.
Matthew refuses to recant, and he dies for it.

This isn't rocket science here.

That's assuming that Matthew actually wrote A, that he was being truthful when he said he was told to recant A, and that he was actually killed for not recanting.

What if he was killed for something else, and he simply stated that he was being killed for A? What if it wasn't written by Matthew at all? The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an anonymous Jew sometime around 80-90AD. Can you tell me what part of the Gospel of Matthew states that it was written by Matthew?

Kylie · Jan 21, 2025

Fervent said:
You misunderstand my point, which is explaining the origins. Islam's origins are easily explainable because Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword.

That does not change the fact that there are many Muslims willing to die for their beliefs.

If Christians believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Christianity is real, then Muslims believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Islam is real,

Fervent said:
You're just missing the actual point of what I've said, which is not simply that followers were willing to die but that the rise of the belief requires explanation.

And when it comes to Islam, that explanation is through the threat of violence?

Have you looked at Christian history? Do you think Christianity never had that kind of violence?

Fervent said:
Nah, more like yours since you completely misunderstand the point by bringing up an irrelevant detail.

And what irrelevant point was that?

AV1611VET · Jan 21, 2025

Kylie said:
The scholarly consensus ...

Yup ... here we go.

The scholarly consensus.

:doh:

2PhiloVoid · Jan 22, 2025

AV1611VET said:
No one at the university level thinks a person who makes a claim must support that claim?

Of course they do, and you're game playing shows us that you're not from a university.

AV1611VET said:
Do universities not teach the burden of proof?

Not lately, they haven't. But they have been teaching folks how to troll others and get away with it.

AV1611VET said:
Please show me once instance where I have told someone to leave me along because they were Christian.

I can't be where you are to conduct a study to see how many Christians you tell off in your life.

I can only go by what I see here on CF, for over a decade.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 22, 2025

Kylie said:
Given that Biblical scholars will tell you that the only thing they can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified, you can't even surmise that he had any followers at all.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Which SPECIFIC Bible scholars have you been listening to lately, Kylie? Care to cite and quote a few since------------oh, by golly!--------------you insinuate that you just know so very, very much about the topic of justified true belief and historical warrant.

Kylie said:
Now, if you want to say that you take it on faith, go right ahead, but you'll have to admit that you have no evidence in order to do that.

Your inferred conflation between evidence and proof is annoying. Have you ever studied Historiography? Or the Philosophy of History? Or the Historian's Craft?

Apparently not. If you had, you'd be able to cite some sources. But since you seem to rarely do so, I'm going to suppose you're merely a neophyte learner whose just trying to find her way through the maze and cobwebs of academia.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 22, 2025

BCP1928 said:
You're right. I dislike Calvin and have a regrettable tendency to blame him for everything I see as wrong with Christianity today.

I'm surprised, though, that you somehow thought I was "into" Calvin.

BCP1928 · Jan 22, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm surprised, though, that you somehow thought I was "into" Calvin.

His malevolent influence is everywhere. Luther was just nuts. Calvin was evil.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 22, 2025

BCP1928 said:
His malevolent influence is everywhere. Luther was just nuts. Calvin was evil.

Maybe, but there's been worse.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 22, 2025

Fervent said:
Let's not oversell it, either. Christians have been unpacking the significance of the resurrection since it happened. They likely understood some basic issues, but it took Paul's theological training to put together some more of the nitty gritty.

I agree. We want a fair historical appraisal rather than only a thinly discerning one where hypothesizing about the history of the 1st century is the focus.

We don't want to slide into thinking that Paul essentially "invented" Christianity, nor do we want to think that all of the other disciples and apostles were somehow completely bereft of any ability to discern aspects of theology that the Lord would want any of us to realize, despite Peter's multiple missteps along the way.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

Well-Known Member

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

Well-Known Member

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

Free thinking isn't critical thinking!

Similar threads